“Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.” (Jeremiah 6:16)

Since the time of the late 1960’s, when America was beginning to become radicalized with the growing youth movement, where liberal leftists such as Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Bill Ayers, Carl Oglesby, and Saul Alinsky (a Communist propagandist) who influenced the lives of Hillary Rodham (Clinton), Bill Clinton and even President Barack Obama. It was Alinsky who formulated the idea of progressive political activism with his writings, such as Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Alinksky created a set of rules (12 to be exact) and in those 12 came the following “rules”:

RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

Alinsky’s tactics were based, not on Stalin’s revolutionary violence or ideas, but on the Neo-Marxist strategies of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Communist. It was Gramsci who declared that Lenin’s Communist agenda would not destroy the West (The United States), instead, Gramsci declared that the real enemy was not the American Constitution, although a genuine threat to the Communist machine, its real threat was in fact the Bible. Gramsci’s quest was more of an assault, an assault that would be on Biblical absolutes and Christian values, which must be crushed as a social force before the new face of Communism could rise and flourish. Malachi Martin states:

“By 1985, the influence of traditional Christian philosophy in the West was weak and negligible…. Gramsci’s master strategy was now feasible. Humanly speaking, it was no longer too tall an order to strip large majorities of men and women in the West of those last vestiges that remained to them of Christianity’s transcendent God.”

In almost every case, from Alinsky to Lenin, to Stalin and Gramsci, the central theme of these propagandists was rebellion, rebellion from the root core of God centered belief that said God gives men freedom (freewill), but instead, they devoted their energy, their finances, even their very lives to one Satanic theme – world dominance. It’s the same song but different tune. Yet their impact, like every demonic doctrine, theirs began to influence many of those who came out of the 60’s revolution, and are now affecting our policies in Washington, and influencing our children in the post-secondary educational institutions, Colleges and Universities. Yet there is one more aspect that radicalism is influencing many which will dramatically influence how the church operates in the future – the Christian church. It even has infected the Roman Catholic Church as well.

Alinsky pioneered a new face of political activism through his powerful grassroots social movement. The old stockyards neighborhood of Chicago was the birthplace of America’s twentieth century phenomenon known as “Community Organizing.”

In 1936 Alinsky left his positions with the state agencies to cofound the Back-of-the-Yards Neighborhood Council. This was his first effort to build a neighborhood citizen reform group, a form of activity which would earn Alinsky a reputation as a radical reformer. Back-of-the-Yards was a largely Irish-Catholic community on Chicago’s southwest side near the famous Union Stockyards, which had been deteriorating for many years. Alinsky organized his neighborhood council among local residents willing to unite to protest their community’s decline and to pressure city hall for assistance. The council had great success in stabilizing the Back-of-the-Yards neighborhood and restoring the morale of local residents.

What Alinsky formed with the BYNC set the pattern for what became known as the Alinsky school of organizing. A neighborhood’s existing social groups were utilized—membership in a newly-formed council was based on organizations, rather than individuals. An organizer from outside the community would work with local leaders in setting up a democratic organization. This was a place in which people could freely express themselves, their situations, needs, and fears. The initial efforts of the council centered around basic organization and economic justice. With such goals, the BYNC was successful in uniting the Roman Catholic Church and radical labor unions towards a common goal—the betterment of the community. This is where we now get the Social Justice from – Saul Alinsky’s communist views, and why Social Justice has become very seductive to the evangelical church today, because it’s geared in transforming the gospel into another gospel, a gospel of deeds and works and not the cross alone. A dependance upon community and not the cross.

Not since the Jesus Movement have we seen a change in the fundamental core of beliefs as we are seeing today. What was once considered “sin” 50-100 years ago, has now been deemed as “progressive” open and now tolerant of other opinions. Evangelical core teachings such as the creation belief, has now become theory, 6 days of creation is now deemed unscientific and considered vague, even laughable in many a Christian Seminary. Traditional beliefs such as God performing miracles throughout the Old Testament have been called into question, as many post-seminary graduates find it more difficult to believe in the very existence of God, and instead have willingly adopted the evolutionary claim by secular teaching than sola scriptura. The harsh reality is the church is changing from a Bible centered source for all truth and instead, it’s developing a secularized theology based on a neo form of theology which says “My theology is whatever I want to make it” instead of the word being the guide. Feelings have replaced scripture, experience is desired more than substance and absolute truth has been replaced by subjective truth (meaning truth to ones ultimate spiritual belief is based on personal ideas and not necessarily that of scriptural truth).

Postmodernism simply states that the old way of thinking was off, not by absolute truth, but by group or social opinion. This worldview affects the following areas of our lives: spirituality, pluralism, the experiential, relativity, altruism, community, creativity, the arts, environmentalism, globality, holism, and authenticity. In many ways we are transitioning away from the “modern” values of rationalism, science, dogmatism, individualism, pragmatism, capitalism, nationalism, compartmentalism, and veneered religiosity. This is the change which is now occurring, and we can see this radical change by two things, 1. Replacement theology from the values of the past, and 2. Theology conditioned by social secular influence. Meaning, if society deems something as morally good, even though it’s scripturally wrong, it is then mixed into current theology to adjust to make secularists (sinners) more comfortable, thus secularism creates theology by social and political influence instead of theology influencing culture and its society. This can be seen in the continuing turn from the view about homosexuality. Nothing has done more to cause a radical shift in the parameters of dialogue than the controversial issue of same sex marriage. Today, more Christians age 35 and younger have become acceptable to same sex marriage.

It’s no secret that Millennials — generally perceived as individuals ages 18 to 35 — are more out of tune with faith and religion than any other generation. Consider Gallup’s research earlier this year of Americans’ views on gay marriage, which found 55 percent of the nation expressing support for same-sex matrimony; that proportion jumped to 78 percent for individuals between the ages of 18 and 29. The source for all of this? Radicalized Pastors.

Rick Warren, considered by mainstream media as “America’s pastor” quotes his own views on social engineering of “change” within Christianity to make it more developed than those of the older generation, in other words, Warren not only believes radical change must come, but it must come even by force – theological force by implementing another gospel.

“Repentance is just changing the way we think about something by accepting the way God thinks about it. That’s all repentance is. The new words for repentance are “paradigm shift.”Pastors, we are in the paradigm-shifting business. We are in the repentance business. We are about changing peoples’ minds at the deepest level—the level of belief and values.” [9 Preaching Tips That Will Change Lives] by Rick Warren, Radicalis Conference Feb. 2011.

“Small churches tend to base their identity on the past. They’re not necessarily thinking about the future. Many of themtend to be late adapters, maintaining the status quo. Often they’re the very last to accept change in a community.” ~Rick WarrenBreaking Through the Attendance Barrier, Issue #109, 7-2- 2003

In Warrens view, the church is a failure, not because of it’s past teachings, although he tends to desire a more progressive and more tolerant view of other religions such as Islam, Warren seeks to bring about a more of a spiritual revolution very similar to what Alinsky declared. “This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families….. “ — Saul Alinsky

Sound vaguely familiar? Radical change, that is what is occurring within the modern church today, unregenerate, unforgiving radical change at any cost. This is Satan’s greatest attempt to bring about his one world system, including a world religion, what stands in his way? The cross. Remove the cross and you remove his his hindrance. Remove the cross and you allow the enemy to dominate the body of Christ. That’s not to say the church will become weak, not at all, but it will allow the growth of another gospel to give rise in the last days, one which is based not on scripture alone, but one a more open theology based on a more open universal appeal. This is the plan, dominate by infiltrate.

Finding it hard to believe that? Take Warren’s example of his idea of revolution – “The first Reformation was about belief; this one’s going to be about behavior,” said Warren, “The first one was about creeds; this one’s going to be about our deeds. The first one divided the church; this time it will unify the church.”

Notice how Warren believes the Reformation concerning belief and Martin’s 95 thesis against the Catholic church was, in his eyes “division”? Why is that? Why would Warren declare the Reformation as being wrong by causing division? The answer is simple, Warren, like many others hate the cross, and instead, want to have a more unified theology, a system of works, governed by the central church. Yet the funny thing is, Warren is actually and I believe cleverly telling how he really wants to bring this new “reformation” about – through Ecumenicalism with the Catholic church. It’s the Catholic church who believed (and still does) that the Reformation is over with, and it’s time to come back to the church.

Yet this is exactly what is going on within the church today – a postmodernist view of Biblical theology, and which I believe is setting the foundation for the man of sin in the years to come. There is no more of a threat to today’s traditional Christian view than postmodernism. The apostle Paul warned us that in the last days, perilous times are coming; “But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty.For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.” 2 Timothy 3:1-5

We are witnessing a broad based backlash against reason in our culture. This backlash is widely promoted in contemporary higher education. The argument is that every time somebody claims to be in possession of the truth (especially religious truth), it ends up repressing people. So its best to make no claims to truth at all. Rejecting objective truth is the cornerstone of postmodernism.

Pastor Juan Luis Hernandez Polanco attributes a theme concerning postmodernism through 12 steps that we must reject bravely with authority and firmness:

1. Evolutionism: God is not the creator of life. Man comes from an autonomus bacterium whose origin is unknown.

2. Humanism: God is not necessary. Man is the center of everything.

3. Relativism: God does not exist. There are no absolute truths. There is no good nor bad.

4. Materialism: There is nothing after death.

5. Social Acceleration: There is no time to fellowship with God.

6. Modernization: Dependence and idolatry towards technology.

7. Consumerism: Money and material things as the only means of satisfaction.

12. Debauchery: Disrespectful attitude towards law and morality. Surrender to the pleasures and lack of self-control.

We must beware and not allow these forms of conduct, prevalling in this world pollute us and condition to act the same way.
Let us remember what the Bible says:

1 John 2: 15 – 17 “Do not love the worlds or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world, the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does, comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever”.

James 4: 4
“You adulterous people, don´t you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who choosese to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God”.

Colossians 3: 1,2
“Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christi is seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things”. There are many Christians who feel so “comfortable” in the world, that instead of saying: “Amen, yes, come Lord Jesus” (Revelation 22:20), almost come to say “No, do not come yet, Lord Jesus”.

The coming change that will impact the modern church has already started, how we deal with it in the coming years will determine if we are successful in our goal of preaching the cross, or instead, succumbing to the pressures of another gospel. That is what is left to be seen.